Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Letter v. Washington Mutual

United States District Court, N.D. California

June 21, 2016

Joint Letter, Sullivan
v.
Washington Mutual, et al.,

          THERESE Y. CANNATA Attorneys for Plaintiff KATY SULLIVAN Also known as Katy Marie Sullivan

          John M. Sorich Attorneys for Defendants WASHINGTON MUTUAL, et. al.

          Edward M. Chen U.S. District Judge.

         Dear Judge Chen:

         On June 2, 2016, plaintiff Katy Sullivan (“plaintiff” or “Ms. Sullivan”) and defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), California Reconveyance Company (“CRC”), and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, etc. (U.S. Bank, and collectively, “Defendants” or “the Bank”) (jointly, the “Parties”) came before this Court for a case management conference to discuss outstanding issues between the parties. Your Honor directed the parties to meet and confer to resolve the issues and file a joint letter informing the outcome to the Court. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the parties hereby submit the following joint letter.

         The Subject Property

         This case arises from a dispute between plaintiff and defendants over property located at 2628-2628A Sutter Street, San Francisco, California (“Property”). Pursuant to a settlement agreement dated February 5, 2015, plaintiff transferred title and interest to Unit 2628A (“lower unit”) to defendants. Plaintiff retained ownership of all other portions of the subject property including Unit 2628 (“upper unit”), the basement, and parking area. The parties have met and conferred on several post-settlement issues concerning structural repairs to the exterior porch area attached to the lower unit, the increased charges to plaintiff’s modified loan, the increased charges to plaintiff’s water bill, the theft and vandalism to plaintiff’s property, and plaintiff’s proposal to purchase the lower unit from defendants.

         PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT:

         A. Structural Repairs Issues are Almost Resolved

         The parties met and conferred regarding the issue of whether Ms. Sullivan is responsible for certain structural repairs on the Property. John Sorich, counsel for Defendants, conveyed that defendants are only aware of structural repairs to the lower unit’s rear porch area. Mr. Sorich indicated that defendants are solely responsible for these structural repairs and would not be asking Ms. Sullivan to share in the costs of such repairs. Ms. Sullivan wants to memorialize this agreement in an addendum to the settlement agreement to avoid any future misunderstanding.

         B. Increased Charges to Current Loan are Possibly Resolved

         The parties met and conferred on the issue of increased charges to Ms. Sullivan’s current modified loan. Mr. Sorich has investigated this issue and determined that the increased charges were a result of improper property taxes (defendants’ property taxes for the lower unit) charged to Ms. Sullivan’s escrow account. Mr. Sorich indicated that defendants have reimbursed Ms. Sullivan for the “amount of overpayment” (neither Counsel nor Ms. Sullivan know the exact amount at this time). Mr. Sorich indicated that an amount of $3, 471.31 have been refunded to Ms. Sullivan’s account. Mr. Sorich indicated that all future loan statements will reflect the previously agreed upon monthly mortgage payment amount ($3, 094.51 per month). Ms. Sullivan has not received any refunds as of the filing of this letter. Ms. Sullivan’s most recent loan statement, received on the week of June 6, 2016, continues to reflect a monthly payment of $4, 155.19, due July 1, 2016. This has to be corrected. The parties will continue to meet and confer to ensure that the full reimbursement is made and that the revised loan statements are accurately stated by defendants.

         C. Increased Charges to Water Bill - No Commitment Yet

         The parties met and conferred regarding the issue of Ms. Sullivan’s monthly water bill doubling since defendants began entering the Property in late March 2016. There is only one water bill account for the entire property as the condominium conversion did not require the separation of the water bill account. Mr. Sorich indicated that he received no information from defendants’ vendor to suggest that they left the water running in the lower unit. Mr. Sorich stated that the lower unit has not been occupied and there has been no water usage. Mr. Sorich has requested that Ms. Sullivan produce the water bills to determine the amount of the water bill increase. Ms. Sullivan believes the water bill has increased by approximately $100 for the months of April, May, and June 2016. Ms. Sullivan previously produced notices from the Public Utilities Commission reflecting continuous water use on the Property. Ms. Sullivan will also produce the most recent water bills to defendants. Mr. Sorich and defendants have not indicated that they would reimburse Ms. Sullivan for the amount of the increased water bill charges. Ms. Sullivan renews her request that defendants provide the contact information of its vendor who handles maintenance for the lower unit, so that this issue may be resolved directly with the vendor.

         D. Theft and Vandalism - ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.